Talk:Bangali Babu English Mem

Reactions section
, It is my view that pretty much all articles about films, books, and other creative works should have a reactions section, as part of the guideline to report "real world impact", and that the proper way forward is to expand it with additional sourced reactions, not to simply remove it. Just as a section is entitled "External links" even when there is only one link (to date). It was not my intent to "cherry-pick" a favorable quote, but to try to find sections out of a long review that more or less summed up the reviewer's conclusions. I have no interest in the film or promoting it -- I was simply attempting to add proper sources and to expand a stub that I found on CSD patrol. DES (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to restore the reactions section, but add an additional quote to provide a more balanced impression of the review. DES (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored the section, included some more negative quotes from the review, and added a second review (which is also an interview with the director and one of the actresses). This is a recent film, more reviews will quite possibly be posted in reliable sources in the future, or there may be ones up now in non-English-language sources. DES (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have enough experience of your editing, DESiegel, to be sure that you were not intending either to promote or to cherry pick, and I apologise for giving an edit summary which appeared to say so. I still think, though, that whatever your intention, the effect was to use a misleading selection in a way that amounted to promotion. I agree that ideally one should add more information to balance the effect, rather than remove what is there, but whenever I am working on Wikipedia there are thousands of other things that ideally should be done, and time spent on doing one of them means there is another equally good or even better change that I don't have time to make. In my judgement, removing a biased section, while perhaps less good than adding content to redress the balance, was better than leaving it as it was, and the time it would have taken me to search for other information on a film that I knew nothing about, weigh up the various sources I found, decide what to select from them, etc etc, would have been disproportionate to the benefit I could have made to a rather obscure article on what as far as I can tell is a not particularly notable film; I thought at the time, and I still think now, that removing the unbalanced section and moving on to do other work for Wikipedia was a more productive use of my time. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)